to be really quite disgusted with the Church?

[CopperHandle]

Visited Norwich Cathedral and the place was plastered in begging signs asking for donations. They were boasting that it costs almost £4000 a DAY to run the building, not including major repairs which regularly run into six figures in a year.

For an institute that preaches charitable giving, putting others before self etc etc is it not massively hypocritical to run in such a way that is so incredibly costly?
£4,000 a day for a single building... so there are more than 80 cathedrals in the UK - just on this alone - how many people could be helped with this amount of money?!

AIBU to think this is massively hypocritical and, well, just plain wrong?

The churches should never have built these edifices in the first place, of course - totally at odds with the new testament. But now they're there, and part of our heritage, it has to be better that sightseers - visiting precisely because of their beauty and/or history, in the main - should pay in the same way that NT or English heritage sites are funded by visitors.

I think it would be more honest to simply charge an admission fee, perhaps have something like an NT membership.

Catholic church has more money than it knows what to do with... they could fund their own restoration.

My local cathedral also runs a museum, hosts concerts free to the public, holds academic talks and tours also free or at a discount and provides help to academics and occasionally host archeological digs. Their grounds are used as a (very lovely) public park and they host a children's choir. The church contributes much more to the community than just religion,

I'm not a church person, I have visited a few old cathedrals, great architecture but is it worth £4000 a day to preserve? Not really.

Whilst they are paying £4000 for a almost empty building to stay standing there are 100's of people sleeping on the streets whilst that building sits empty all night. Yes it maybe a part of history but is it really serving a purpose?

Don't like it, don't go. Quite simple really.

I think it puts off those on lower incomes from just going in to pray or see how it feels to be in a place of worship.

You can pray anywhere. Does true worship really require an awesome building or music?

You can pray anywhere. Does true worship really require an awesome building or music?

Of course not. But excluding poor people from the nicer churches doesn't sound very christian, does it?

Strange that we need churches to worship an omnipresent God .

I can't see the issue. They're clearly saying that they need the money for the building. It's not as though they are saying they use it for good causes and then diverting the money for the building.

Also, within the Cathedral will be other collections for other causes. This money might not be raised if the footfall wasn't coming through a poorly maintained building.

Lastly Norwich, like all Cathedrals, will have to adhere the Charities Commission and CoE accounting standards to ensure the monies are being handled correctly and in an open and transparent way.

If you don't want to give, don't. If you don't want to pay towards the upkeep of a cathedral, don't visit. If you can't afford to give but still need the cathedrals pastoral services you can access them.

However, I suspect you just wanted a pop at religion.

Think about all the things that need taking care of. Heating and lighting for the cathedral. All the buildings and estate, running repairs and maintenance. Staffing costs - as well as the dean and chapter you've got a maintenance team, cleaning crew, the admin staff, broderers (they make and maintain all the textiles including ecclesiastical garments, altar cloths, kneelers), stone masons, glaziers, the buildings they need to do their work, the flowers, the music, the archives and library, the list goes on. £4,000 a day doesn't seem unreasonable

Of course they shouldn't be let to fall into ruin, but they could perhaps be adapted for use other than purely touristic/worship-related.

How much do Museums cost? Parks? Gardens? National Parks?

I was amazed how much my local church contributed to local, national and world charities. The support they give to local communities- local food bank, OAP lunch clubs, Scouts, toddler group, carers support group, special needs teenagers activity group, weight watchers, salsa, tea dances, coffee morning, local drugs drop in help.

The premises are used everyday, we were unable to book the meeting hall when we wanted.

I'm sure if OP were really interested she could dig into the accounts of Norwich Cathedral and find out exactly what they're spending on. Other costs which spring to mind are security, insurance, salary costs for the tour guides, printing leaflets etc. £4k does seem a lot which is why I assume there are other annual costs broken down.

It's no secret that buildings which are hundreds of years old cost a fortune to run.

I agree with you op. The hypocricy of spending money on church vestments all of the gold and paintings that they own. When little children don't have food or medicines. How do they justify it.

I object to paying to pray. A few historical cathedrals have side altars set aside for private prayer that you do not pay to enter. I think it is disgraceful that not all Cathedrals do this.

So without knowing exactly how that money is spent or needed you have concluded they are hypocritical

Why go and visit if you dislike the church and its double standards?

The irony is that you presumably went there because you thought it was an interesting or beautiful building. If it was to pray, you could equally do that in the nearest church or at home. I'm not religious at all but I do think these beautiful cathedrals are part of our heritage and add massively to our architectural landscape. How would Salisbury or the City of London look without their cathedrals.

If someone visits an attraction, I think they should pay towards its upkeep. I went a small but vibrant gallery recently and was disappointed to see how many people didn't make even a small donation to its upkeep. People love things to be free but it's this attitude that leads to places like St Paul's having to charge.

Buildings are extremely expensive to maintain. Even my house needs constant upkeep. UABVU.

Livingdisgracefully Why should poor people be forced to walk further or go home if they want to pray?

If they are just a tourist attraction, the church should be upfront about that, instead of pretending otherwise.

Bluntly put, cathedrals are of enduring architectural and historic value. Humans in the other hand are in plentiful supply and anyway have a finite life span.
Viewed like that it makes sense to spend on the upkeep of the cathedral

The 2013 accounts are easily accessible online - they were the first I found on google - it cost £54,000 for insurance alone and £850k for cathedral and precincts upkeep. The building is over 900 years old and massive, it's not going to be cheap to run. It's also a big tourist draw for the city and used regularly for exhibitions and concerts as well as being free to enter unlike many other cathedrals.

Cathedrals are an important part of our cultural heritage.

Re ticketed entry, the City of London is heaving with churches (many by Wren) that are completely free to visit. And you can go to St Paul's to a service for nothing.

It's a bit like art galleries, there are a lot of people who want them to be there but they don't want to pay, and they don't realise how massively expensive these places are to run.

Of course its purpose is not to specifically be a tourist attraction. It's a Cathedral and an important worship place to Christians.

Or maybe when they spend money they should ensure a space is set aside for those who just want to pray. I don't care if you can't see the architectural features from that space. But most local churches are not open for prayer outside of services. I understand that, they don't have the money to staff it. So those who do should meet that need.

How many people could be helped by £4000 a day. The church should raise and spend the money on more 'good works' rather than pouring it into crumbling black building in an attempt to keep up the facade of its past status.